If you are following developments only through Turkish media, you might think that the Turkish intelligence agency under İbrahim Kalın has just executed the largest prisoner exchange since World War II. Indeed, if you look at the praise and comments which appear to come from a single source, it seems that MIT (National Intelligence Organization) has conducted negotiations with many countries simultaneously, facilitated the agreements and logistics, and successfully completed the operation! There is no end to the praise – or you might call it flattery. However, if you view the situation from the capitals of the involved countries, such as Washington and Moscow, the reality is quite different.
To summarize the situation briefly, although the Erdoğan regime and media are trying to capitalize on the opportunity to boost their reputation, the event itself is significant. The term ‘historic exchange’ is not an exaggeration. A total of 26 individuals held in prisons in the U.S., Germany, Poland, Slovenia, Norway, Russia, and Belarus were exchanged reciprocally. The operation involved seven planes: two from the U.S., one each from Germany, Poland, Slovenia, Norway, and Russia. Among the transferred prisoners/hostages to Turkey, two were children, ten were sent to Russia, thirteen to Germany, and three to the U.S.
So what was Turkey’s role in this process? U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s statement provides some insight. In his statement summarizing the process, Blinken said, “We are grateful for the support of a number of our allies, including Germany, Poland, Norway, and Slovenia, which made this agreement possible. We also appreciate the Turkish government for providing a location for the safe return of these individuals to the U.S. and Germany.”
In Blinken’s ‘thank you list’, Turkey is mentioned fifth, with an emphasis on its logistical support. Similarly, Turkey is mentioned fifth in the statement from the White House. In many capitals, including Washington, background briefings are common. Indeed, during the briefing by the U.S. State Department following the exchange, the language used was quite different from that used in Erdoğan’s media.
In short, while the prisoner exchange is a significant event, don’t pay attention to the Erdoğan regime’s propaganda. Turkey’s role in this process is limited to being a logistical hub. This is quite normal. Countries like Russia have very few alternative landing options for their planes. Turkey stands out as a feasible location for such operations due to its ‘strategic value’. This strategic value has made Turkey highly valuable… Otherwise, under Erdoğan’s regime, Turkey has become like a rundown shanty. Major powers assess their relations with Turkey based on this strategic value.
İbrahim Kalın Inherits ‘Rubble’!
On the other hand, İbrahim Kalın’s situation is understandable. He inherited a ‘rubble’ from Hakan Fidan. Despite the media praise, MIT’s record is not stellar. Hakan Fidan’s Syria policies and actions alone are enough to cause trouble for İbrahim Kalın. The attempt to boost reputation through the recent prisoner exchange is nothing more than opportunism.
It is also worth noting that Turkey’s experience in hostage exchanges is not particularly impressive. On June 11, 2014, ISIS stormed Turkey’s Consulate General in Mosul and took 49 people hostage, including Consul Öztürk Yılmaz. ISIS, with fanfare, raided the consulate and took Turkish citizens hostage, while then-Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu and MIT Undersecretary Hakan Fidan tried to cover up the scandal with bombastic speeches. Although Davutoğlu and Fidan claimed they did not pay a ransom or negotiate, it is known that a large sum of money was paid to ISIS from the secret fund and ISIS militants were released from prisons.
Additionally, when discussing hostage negotiations, it’s important to remember the two Turkish soldiers who were brutally burned by ISIS. On December 22, 2016, ISIS released a video showing the burning of two Turkish soldiers. Following the 19-minute horrifying video, the AKP government denied the incident, claiming “there is no such event!” However, it was later revealed that not only did Erdoğan and the AKP administration not make any effort to rescue the hostages, but they also did not allow the return of their bodies to Turkey. In short, MIT’s and Erdoğan’s regime’s record on hostage and exchange matters is not impressive.
Who Betrayed Ismail Haniye?
Another significant headline is the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, the diplomatic head of HAMAS, who was killed during a visit to Tehran for the swearing-in ceremony of Iran’s new President Mesud Pezeshkian. The assassination is historically significant as it coincided with the killing of Hizbullah leader Fuad Shukr in Lebanon and HAMAS’s political head Ismail Haniyeh by Netanyahu’s Israel on the same day. Both assassinations warrant separate analysis regarding how they were carried out and the chaos they will cause.
Firstly, it is worth noting that despite Iran’s thousands of years of state tradition and strong diplomatic network, in recent years it has become something of a ‘paper tiger’. Recent events show that Iran cannot even protect its most critical figures.
To recall, key figures in Iran’s nuclear program, such as Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, were assassinated on November 27, 2020, in Tehran. After the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, in Baghdad by the U.S., a bomb explosion during Soleimani’s funeral in Iran killed nearly a hundred civilians. Last May, President Raisi’s helicopter suspiciously crashed, leading to his death. Now, the most important HAMAS figure has been killed in Tehran, within the well-protected house of the Revolutionary Guards.
In summary, Iran is in a state of severe impotence.
The Most Critical Question
Now, the most critical issue: how did Israel carry out these assassinations, especially the Haniyeh assassination? The killing of Haniyeh will cause significant regional upheaval, but to understand what will happen next, we need to determine how the assassination was carried out.
Iranian sources claimed the attack was conducted with a missile or drone from the air. However, images of the building and reports from regional sources speaking to the New York Times do not confirm this. The damage to the building suggests that the attack might have been carried out with a bomb placed inside. According to the New York Times, based on high-level sources from five Middle Eastern countries, the attack on Haniyeh involved a bomb placed in the house two months prior. Haniyeh had stayed there before, and Israeli intelligence had been monitoring the house for a long time. The bombs in the house were reportedly detonated remotely. The images of the site and the fact that other parts of the building were not damaged support this claim.
Why is this important?
If Israel executed this assassination using bombs placed two months ago, it means there was significant internal support in Iran. After all, the building belongs to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and is well-protected. Such an attack could not have been carried out without local collaborators. This leads to the question: “Who betrayed Haniyeh?” It is known that after the October 7 attacks, the Israeli government stated that HAMAS leaders would not be safe in any country, including Turkey, Qatar, and Iran. Even without such a statement, it is clear that HAMAS leaders are targets.
At this point, numerous theories are circulating. There are many claims ranging from internal HAMAS conflicts to Iran’s role. The theory that Haniyeh represented the moderate wing and his removal would strengthen the radical wing should not be disregarded. Additionally, Netanyahu recently returned from a controversial visit to the U.S. Although the Biden administration claimed “we had no knowledge,” the theory that Netanyahu received a green light cannot be dismissed. Another crucial point is that Netanyahu wants to draw Iran into a war and spread the conflict to the region with these two critical assassinations.
In short, the region is facing a turbulent future.
However, one fundamental question remains: If Israel was able to carry out these precise operations in Lebanon and Iran with ease, where were its superior intelligence capabilities on October 7? The answer to this question will shape the future of both the Middle East and the world.
